church, and not in the kingdom of Satan. Would he declare them blessed who belong to the kingdom of the god of this world? If the kingdom of God here means the church invisible, or the church triumphant, then, as the greater comprehends the less, if to them belong the blessings to them belongs the sign. If they do not belong to the church at all, then they are subjects of the kingdom of Satan, and the models to which the children of the kingdom of God are to be conformed.

6. The apostles, in laying the foundations of the new dispensation of the covenant, act upon the assumption that this great constitutional principle has not been disturbed. The whole history takes for granted the principle with which the Jews were familiar from the days of Abraham, that the children of believers were to be recognized as in covenant with God, and receive the seal of the covenant. The apostles baptize whole households on the faith of the heads of the families respectively. Lydia's family were all baptized, and no mention is made of the faith of any of her household but her own.-Acts xvi., 14, 15.

The case of the jailer at Philippi attests the truth: "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house; and they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." In the original it is: "he rejoiced with all his house, πεπιστευκὼς τῷ Θεῷ, he believing in God." This is just as it would be if the principle for which we contend were universally admitted and acted on, but unaccountable on the contrary supposition. These instances being merely a sample of the proceedings of the apostles, what occurred in these families occurred in all other families under similar circumstances.

7. The apostle Paul expressly decides that the privilege of the seal of the covenant, derived through Abraham, is continued to both Gentile and Jew: "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also; And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.Rom. iv., 11,12.

Abraham is called the father of circumcision, because this ordinance, as a seal of the covenant, began with him, and by him was transmitted to all his believing seed, Jew and Gentile. Circumcision, the first name of the seal, is still used to express that seal. When circumcision has passed away, baptism occupies its place. The apostle uses circumcision and baptism as expressing the same truth-Col. ii., II, 12: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism." Many things retain their first names when the particular circumstances that gave the name are changed. A candlestick, drawing its name from the stick of which it was made, is a candlestick still when made of gold. So the personal seal of the covenant is called circumcision still, though now it is in the pleasant form of baptism. The seal then continues to the uncircumcised, and the uncircumcised have no other seal than baptism, which is the same seal, though under a new form, given to Abraham and his seed, and therefore it is to be applied, as in its old form, to believers and to their seed.

8. The Apostle of the Gentiles decides a case which shows that the principle of infant membership in the church was known and unquestioned, and that it is to be liberally applied. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." -I. Cor. vii., 14. Holy and unholy mean consecrated to God and not consecrated to him. Holy describes membership in the church, unholy the want of such membership. It is declared by the

apostle that if both parents are unbelievers, their children are not in the church; but if both are believers, it is assumed they are in the church. But the question is, if one parent is a believer, and the other an unbeliever, what is the relation of the children are they in the church, the kingdom of God, with the believing parent, or out of the church, and in the kingdom of Satan, with the unbelieving? The apostle decides that the parental relation is sanctified by the one believing parent, and therefore the privileges of the children are not withdrawn by the unbelief of the other.

The evasion of the force of this testimony is by contradicting the whole usage of the language in rendering the words rendered holy and unholy by legitimate and illegitimate. The verse, according to these translators, would read thus: For the unbelieving husband is made legitimate by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is made legitimate by the husband: else were your children illegitimate; but now are they legitimate. These words are never so used in the Bible. This rendering makes the apostle say what neither he nor any one else, not even these learned critics themselves believe, that the marriage of unbelievers is no better than concubinage, and their children are bastards.

Although nothing is to be believed but what is taught us in the Word of God by direct declaration, or fair and necessary inference, yet a position fairly established by that only infallible rule of faith and

of practice may be corroborated by the testimony of history.

The historical argument is in favor of infant baptism.

Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the apostolic age, says: "We have not received the carnal but spiritual circumcision by baptism, and it is enjoined on all persons to receive it in the same way." He evidently considers baptism as being in the place of circumcision, and consequently, like that ancient rite, designed for infants as well as for adults. In one of his apologies for the Christians, he observes “several persons among us of sixty or seventy years old, who were made disciples to Christ from their childhood." If infant children were made disciples, they were undoubtedly baptized.

Irenæus, who wrote sixty-seven years after the apostles, and was then an aged man, says concerning Christ : "He came to save all persons who by him are regenerated unto God; -infants, little ones, youths, and elderly persons. He speaks of infants and little ones as being regenerated. It is evident, from his own words, that he had reference to their baptism, for he tells us: "When Christ gave his apostles the command of regenerating unto God, he said, go, and teach all nations, baptizing them." Justin Martyr says they are "regenerated in the same way of regeneration in which we have been regenerated, for they are washed with water in the